and research — might occur through the school. O n e step toward integration of practice and teaching is already taken in the profession at large, through creation of an Intern Development Program, now being implemented. Also similar to medicine, architecture is characterized by a potent inner hierarchy of status. In medicine, surgeons are the "elite";
One thing that's unusual and distinctive about architectural education, is its long-term devotion to the problem method of teaching—the casestudy approach. It is an excellent and appropriate method, because it is responsive to the process of synthesis of which architectural design consists.
in architecture, it's the designers. In architecture, so much stress has been placed on the role and importance of design (designers) that it intimidates those more interested and more able in other aspects of architecture. It is unfortunate, and detrimental to the profession. I believe it is one of the underlying reasons that architecture has not experienced the development of specializations anything , like those in other disciplines despite the fact t h a t it is a multifaceted, comprehensive field. Architects remain fiercely devoted to the perception of themselves as generalists, and fiercely proud of the kind of creativity characteristic of the design experience. I believe this, too, to be a present and future issue in architecture and architectural education. If not through specialization, how are we to deal effectively with the growing complexity of architectural practice, 44
and the exponential growth of knowledge which we are expected to utilize in that practice? Perhaps the future will see greater stress on the architect's effectiveness as a manager — the manager of a team of specialists, both from within architecture and from other disciplines. I would count three primary intellectual challenges facing our discipline. O n e is the age-old challenge presented by architecture's symbolism. Currently, the profession has run amok with a proliferation of theories for design, and of preoccupation with design theory. W h a t kinds of architectural symbols are truly appropriate for today's American society? We observe a growing concern by communities to establish a stronger sense of continuity with the architectural past. I would expect this current m o o d and activity in preservation and conservation to continue in the future, and to increase. At the same time, we are talking of extending mankind's habitation into the reaches of space. We are also beginning to experience the effects of dense congestion in our cities and the h u m a n and social problems it produces. Should architecture become more socially conscious and humanistic, or participate more fully in the advancement of technological expression? In either case, how can it? There's a whole series of questions to pursue relative to architecture's symbolistic responsibilities. A second intellectual challenge is better to interpret and respond to the Technological Age. So-called "intelligent buildings" employing computer control for the indoor climate, building security, and many functional requirements are now being built. It's not difficult to visualize. Would such a house succeed and be accepted? One is reminded of the time in the 1920s when Jeanneret Le Corbusier, great Swiss pioneer in the modernist movement in architecture, described a house as "a machine for living in." From across the Atlantic came the huffy reply of Frank Lloyd Wright, also busy interpreting the machine age in architecture: "Only insofar as the h u m a n heart is a
suction pump." Perhaps Corbusier will prove prophetic; perhaps Wright's humanist concern will prevail. We think that we here at Tech are in an excellent environment for addressing this issue; it is a high priority of the college. Probably the most significant intellectual challenge faced by architectural schools is to do something about the knowledge base. I've described the generic reason for its neglect; finding a solution for its revitalization is not so easy. The traditions in architecture and architectural education are quite reasonable and quite firmly established. Along with about a dozen others, our school is seeking to establish a new tradition, to add to (not replace) the old: the tradition of research as an operational n o r m . This duality of role for the collective faculty is replete with hard questions and sources of conflict. We are committed in our school to the seeking of answers to the questions and resolution of the conflicts. O u r faculty consists not only of architects but also environmental psychologists, mechanical, civil, and electrical engineers, historians, urban planners, and building scientists, all of w h o m are doing architectural research, along with their architect colleagues. We're following this path out of conviction that the knowledge base needs continuous attention and development, and out of conviction that this new tradition we're trying to get established can only benefit the quality of architectural education, and the architecture its products will produce. Time will tell; results so far are basically positive.